Debates of Oct. 20th, 1995

Referendum Campaign

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us clearly whether or not his government intends to withdraw from Quebec's areas of responsibility such as education, health, manpower training and regional development and to fully compensate Quebec through tax point transfers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, education comes under the full responsibility of Quebec's Minister of Education.

I am happy that the matter was raised because he should do a good job. Quebec has the highest dropout rate in the country. This has nothing to do with the policy governing transfer payments. The policy is exactly the same for all provinces, including Quebec. Why are there more dropouts in Quebec? They should start by dealing with that problem.

Provinces have complete control over the hospital sector. We do not do a thing in that area, except send money. If they want us to stop collecting taxes and sending money, we can, but that is not what they want, of course.

They do not want to do the dirty job of collecting taxes. They want us to do it and to send them a blank cheque.

However, we have national responsibilities. The federal government is the one providing a national health care system to which all Canadians have equal access, instead of what some provinces would like to put in place at this time, that is to say, one system for the rich and one system for the poor. It is thanks to the Canadian government that we have a national health care system ensuring that all Quebecers as well as all other Canadians have equal access to health care. Under this system, when you are sick, you can be admitted to a hospital not because you have money but because you are a Canadian. It is a simple as that.

Pornography

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the National Film Board funded movie "Léolo" features a scene in which a child engages in an act of bestiality. As reprehensible as that is, it is made even more so by the fact that Canadian taxpayers have helped to fund this movie and that it was shown on Canada's public broadcaster across the country, the CBC.

I wonder if the Minister of Canadian Heritage can explain why he thinks this reflects Canadian culture and Canadian values and why in the world are Canadian taxpayers paying for that kind of garbage?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and for providing the notice.

The issue of government funding for independent agencies is a thorny one. Certain artistic expression, while it may appeal to some, is clearly offensive to others. The film in question which aired on the CBC at 11.30 p.m. was produced under the former government. I understand it contained some controversial images.

However, I think even the member can appreciate that the CBC, with the airing of NFB and Telefilm movies, will allow the public to judge the works on their merit.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the government is trying to justify this. I knew it would try to wrap this in the cloak of an artistic film. However, the great majority of Canadians would never let that kind of trash in their houses under any circumstances. It has been permitted in under the CBC.

At a time when the government regulator, the CRTC, is looking at the issue of violence in television, how can the minister explain his own broadcaster airing a film that has many scenes that most Canadians could only describe as disgusting and tasteless?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, surely on the basis of one scene in one film the member would not want us to unleash a new age of censorship or abandon the Canadian film industry. The CBC is protected under the Broadcasting Act which allows it to have journalistic freedom.

The hon. member might consider separating the two issues: on the one, censorship; on the other, our investment in the film sector and the cultural sector which is a thriving industry that results in about 600,000 jobs in this country.

Referendum Campaign

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The No committee says that Quebec must have full control over those sectors which fall under its jurisdiction. The federal government goes against that position by continuing to interfere, with its spending power, in the manpower, education and health sectors.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that Ottawa is using its spending authority not only to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction, but also to impose national standards that do not reflect Quebec's priorities?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first, the claims made by the member opposite are absolutely false. Second, the real issue is that, today, the member for Roberval talked about a country. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition talked about a Quebec citizenship and said that the Canadian passport would no longer be used by Quebecers. Today, he changed his tune. The burden of proof rests with those who want to split the country.

I ask them: do they want to remain Canadians or not? If not, they should tell the truth to Quebecers before October 30.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister expect to be taken seriously, considering that the establishment of the human resources investment fund, through which Ottawa will interfere even more in the manpower training sector, amounts to a blatant rejection of the position held by the No committee?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government which is refusing to negotiate on manpower issues is the Quebec pequiste government, not the federal government. The real issue on October 30 is the one raised this morning by the member for Roberval, and also by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that Quebecers would no longer use the Canadian passport. This will be the real issue on October 30. We are prepared to negotiate with the provincial governments. We are not in favour of status quo. There is only one government in Canada using the status quo as an excuse: it is the separatist and pequiste government in Quebec.

Francophones Outside Quebec

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the francophones of Ontario and other Canadian provinces feel insulted and revolted by the disdainful remarks made at their expense earlier this week by the separatist member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs be so kind as to inform the House of the status of the francophone communities within Canada and to indicate the key measures taken by our government to support their development?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata shown her ignorance of, and probably also her disdain for, francophones outside Quebec, but this very morning the regional delegate of the Parti Quebecois in my area had the nerve to make the statement that francophones outside Quebec are a colonized people.

This is an area in which the federal government has always assumed its responsibilities far better than the Parti Quebecois. Allow me to offer this quote: "The government of Quebec has not done enough, even the PQ has not done enough. The federal government has certainly done far more than Quebec has. I am prepared to admit that. But I think that all of us, in Ottawa and in Quebec, ought to promote francophones outside Quebec". The author of that quote is Lucien Bouchard himself.

Justice

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. Oresto Panacui and Jean-Guy Dipietro were convicted and sentenced to jail for armed

robbery, kidnapping and attempted murder. They were released and the minister is well aware that Panacui has already reoffended.

The parole board released Panacui even though they acknowledged: "You are serving a very long sentence for a very violent crime and drug addiction was a factor in your criminal lifestyle".

Why is the minister allowing the parole board to release violent criminals and jeopardize the safety of Canadians?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the law passed by Parliament creating the parole board set it up as an independent organization, an administrative tribunal operating at arm's length from the government. The law I referred to does not give the Solicitor General of Canada any authority to intervene in the decisions of the parole board.

However, I will be happy to make sure the hon. member's concerns are brought to the attention of the board.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, another case in point. Dwayne Archie Johnson, who in 1970 abducted, beat and eventually stabbed Helen Betty Osborne 56 times before he left her body in a ditch, was convicted of second degree murder and in 1986 sentenced to imprisonment for life with no chance of parole for 10 years.

In March of this year he was granted day parole after serving seven years of his sentence. According to section 135 of the corrections act, the minister can direct the commissioner of the parole board to review and revoke parole.

When will the minister intervene against violent killers or will he continue to jeopardize the safety of Canadians by not acting at all?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to carry out the duties given to me by Parliament.

It is my understanding that the parole board operates at arm's length from government and from parliamentarians. Having said that, I will be happy to review the act and see what should and could be done under the terms of the law passed by Parliament.

Referendum Campaign

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On three fundamental elements, namely the right of veto, a distinct society and respect of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, there is an increasingly marked contradiction between the positions of the No committee and of the federal government.

Quebecers have a right to know whether the federal government fully endorses the position given in the brochure of the director general of elections distributed throughout Quebec with respect to the right of veto, a distinct society and respect of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the policy adopted by the committee for the no and that of the government of Canada. This is a written document in which there is a full partnership. Where the contradictions lie, however, is in the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, who claims one day that he will negotiate Canadian citizenship and the next day Quebec citizenship.

One of them says he wants to negotiate with Canada, the other says what he wants is a country. Where the glaring contradictions lie is with the policies of the separatists, who do not want to tell Quebecers the truth. I know that Quebecers are not fools and they will certainly understand that the question on October 30 is yes or no for the separation of Quebec, and the answer will be no.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is a simple one. We are 11 days from referendum day. Does the Prime Minister endorse all of the recommendations of the committee for the no in this brochure, or does he not?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself has stated that he had a hand in these documents and endorses them fully. The issue about contradictions lies not with the document of the no side, but with the separatists themselves, who are going all around Quebec claiming that they want to negotiate something with Canada while at the same time, as they finally admitted yesterday, really wanting a separate country. They want nothing to do with Canada, they want Quebec passports, Quebec citizenship, and that is the choice that will be made clearly on October 30 by Quebecers, when they say no to the separation of Quebec from Canada.

Fisheries

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

When the Atlantic groundfishery was announced last year, $300 million was allocated for capacity reduction. To date one-third of

this allocation has been spent. How many licences have been retired? Two hundred and fifty-two out of 14,000. That represents less than 2 per cent of the groundfish licences on the east coast, nowhere near the 50 per cent reduction that was targeted.

Given that the minister has already spent one-third of his budget for a capacity reduction of only 2 per cent, can he explain how he intends to reach his 50 per cent target?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the TAG program has a $1.9 billion budget. Because more people applied and were approved, there is a shortfall in some parts of the program.

The total budget of $1.9 billion will be respected. We will ensure that that we live within our means. Within those programs is a retirement program and a training program. We will work closely with my colleague the Minister of Human Resources Development to ensure that we stay within that budgetary program.

Some adjustments will have to be made. Those retirement programs will be part of the overall program to deal with TAGS and to deal with the issues on the east coast.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary acknowledges that cuts have been made to training, to green projects and to capacity reduction. The list goes on and on.

When the program was introduced it was clearly stated by the government that the program would only meet its financial targets if training, green projects and capacity reduction were successful at getting people off the program. Now that the government has slashed these programs and capacity reduction targets cannot be met, will the minister tell Atlantic fishermen what they are proposing to do when the $1.9 billion run out?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, these are the members of the Reform Party who after spending a weekend on the east coast were telling everybody the problems of the east coast. They do not have a clue about the problems of the east coast.

These are the same members who did not support TAGS. They wanted to cancel the whole TAGS program. I am very glad to see they have developed some understanding of the east coast problems by spending one weekend there.

I can assure the members that the training programs will continue. We will work closely with the Minister of Human Resources Development. There have to be some adjustments in the program. The green projects are continuing.

I hope the member will make another trip to the east coast so that he can see the training programs, so that he can see the green programs that continue to help with the disaster on the east coast.

Breast Cancer

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is breast cancer awareness month. Although progress has been made, much more needs to be done to eliminate breast cancer. Can the Minister of Health tell the House if the government has met its goals and what is further being done to eliminate breast cancer in Canada?